Jump to content

FTC Votes to ban no-compete clauses


Jazzy G

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

This could have some big repercussions across the wrestling industry if it goes through, as there are legal challenges exoected. Here's a link to the CNN article, as opposed to one from a "rag sheet, brother". 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/success/ftc-bans-non-compete-clauses/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Interesting. What’s often forgotten about the much-maligned 90 day clauses is that the wrestlers still get paid their downside throughout. So for every five instances of people frustrated to twiddle their thumbs instead of getting right back on TV with their new employer, there’s one that sometimes comes out and says “It gave me chance to heal up a bit.” So if WWE are made to adhere, while it would return to the wrestlers the right to jump straight back on the wheel, it would also deny them a little paid break while they court potential new companies to work for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, air_raid said:

Interesting. What’s often forgotten about the much-maligned 90 day clauses is that the wrestlers still get paid their downside throughout. So for every five instances of people frustrated to twiddle their thumbs instead of getting right back on TV with their new employer, there’s one that sometimes comes out and says “It gave me chance to heal up a bit.” So if WWE are made to adhere, while it would return to the wrestlers the right to jump straight back on the wheel, it would also deny them a little paid break while they court potential new companies to work for.

Gonna say, I'm not sure it's a true non compete... they are still employed and paid for 90 days.

Mind you I'm not a lawyer, so be interesting to see what comes of this.

Outside of wrestling that is fucking massive for the corporate world.

Also means McMahons non compete is non existent. 

Edited by andrew "the ref" coyne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I once worked at a company that had a 6 month non-compete. 

But that didn't stop one guy nicking a load of contacts, starting up his own thing and hitting up some of the largest companies in the world within the window, bragging about it, and being hit with a cease and desist from our old company, at which point he absolutely shit himself.

He was a nobhead so this was very funny to all of us obviously. 

No correlation, just makes me laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things UK people miss when they get all wound up about US non-competes, is that they're essentially notice periods or gardening leave, which we don't bat an eyelid at.

The US get so wound up about them because they don't really do notice periods (when I worked in the States, my notice period was 'at will' but the courteous thing to do was offer a week or two), so these 'non competes' fill that gap in industries where talent poaching is common. But you get paid, and they very rarely lost longer than 90 Days unless you're a mega-baller.

The UK style non-competes are far more pernicious, where you have an unpaid non-compete that lasts far longer than your paid notice. That's proper bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Note the FTC ruling is for employees, not independent contractors, so it wouldn't affect WWE wrestlers.

As noted, it wouldn't make much difference to the standard WWE release anyway. They'd just switch from "we're ending the contract but we'll pay you for 90 days if you don't go on TV elsewhere" to explictly stating "here's your 90 days notice of us ending the contract; we won't be booking you in the meantime so you just get your downside."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always assumed that 90 day no compete was a wrestler getting paid downside of their contract for 90 days. That is essentially them being bought out of their contract? If your contract actually runs down they can't stop you moving straight to AEW the following day can they?

 

I had one job where I had a no compete clause, I worked for a Thames Water contractor and if I left I needed to wait 6 months before going to Thames or another Thames contractor. Everyone in all the contractors and Thames apparently had it. However if you left to join another Thames Water contractor but not actually work on Thames Water projects that was fine. It was never enforced though, it was there to stop you fucking off if they really needed to but loads of people swapped between. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
7 minutes ago, westlondonmist said:

I always assumed that 90 day no compete was a wrestler getting paid downside of their contract for 90 days. That is essentially them being bought out of their contract? If your contract actually runs down they can't stop you moving straight to AEW the following day can they?

 

Yep, that's right. (The old contracts used to auto-renew for another year unless the wrestler specifically gave notice to end them during a particular period, though that's not the case in the most recent ones made public.)tm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

One thing that may be an issue if WWE does come under these rules is that the most recently-public standard booking contract has a one-year no compete if you are fired for a disciplinary breach (as opposed to WWE just giving you a 90-day notice release). That sounds like exactly the thing these rules would stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2024 at 2:08 PM, SuperBacon said:

I once worked at a company that had a 6 month non-compete. 

But that didn't stop one guy nicking a load of contacts, starting up his own thing and hitting up some of the largest companies in the world within the window, bragging about it, and being hit with a cease and desist from our old company, at which point he absolutely shit himself.

He was a nobhead so this was very funny to all of us obviously. 

No correlation, just makes me laugh.

This doesn't have anything to do with machine repairs does it? Sounds extremely similar to something an ex-colleague of mine tried to do once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

Haha, no it doesn't sadly. 

Haha, had to ask as it's literally word for word what an ex-colleague of mine did on the job after we worked together. He worked for the only company servicing a particular type of machine in the country and decided he was going to run against them. He forgot that they were the only company who did it as they built the machines too and to maintain a warranty all their customers took out a service plan too so there was no actual real business for him, but they still chose to cease and desist him out of business too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...